Proof of Photomanipulation

[Dave Rogers]

Wrong. You just got done saying that you can determine distances from the line of sight yet in your very own line of sight poles b and d nearly over lap. Fruthermore, pole c is further from pole d in your line of sight that pole d and b, yet in the photot the exact opposite is true....pole c is closer to d than d is to b.

Which means that the line of sight I've drawn is off by a fraction, and if you rotate it very slightly clockwise then you'll reproduce the exact relative positions of the poles in photo #2. And the only reason you're saying that the poles nearly overlap is that you're imagining that their size is something similar to the big blue blobs you've pasted into the overhead photo to represent them, whereas in reality they're much narrower.

It's trivially easy to figure all this out from drawing the line of sight.

Dave

 

[Mobertermy]

Yes, they could have interviewed all the known witnesses, but do they include ALL the known witnesses in their list? Do you have a list of everybody they interviewed and the raw video or text from those interviews? Or do you claim that the list of NoC witnesses are the ONLY people that day who saw the plane?

The question isn't where the plane was when it was over West Virginia or Glebe road. They interviewd the pertinent witnesses to where the plane was in its final moments. Even witnesses they didn't interview corroborate the North path (like Steve Riskus...who also saw a pole on the ground NoC).

 

[Mobertermy]

Which means that the line of sight I've drawn is off by a fraction, and if you rotate it very slightly clockwise then you'll reproduce the exact relative positions of the poles in photo #2. And the only reason you're saying that the poles nearly overlap is that you're imagining that their size is something similar to the big blue blobs you've pasted into the overhead photo to represent them, whereas in reality they're much narrower.

It's trivially easy to figure all this out from drawing the line of sight.

Dave

It is trivially easy to draw the line of sight and I dont think the poles work in the line of sight you drew and claim is correct.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

John, I'm as anti-CIT as you are.

As to the citgo video there are three possibilities I can think of.

1) Video is faked (CIT's claim)
2) Video is correct (CIT is wrong)
3) Shadow is actually from the C-130 that was following the 757.

Then why do you accept their evidence that witnesses are saying planes are NoC when we have shown you how most of them could not possibly tell one way or the other??? and that others are definitively SoC??????

Its 2) as it can't be 3) as timing is all wrong and C-130 was much higher and shadow would be well to the north probably over the cemetery or even further
1) is just baseless assertion.

 

[Gamolon]

Let me think about it. While I am can you tell me the appoximate location of where pole 3 would be in photo2?

Did you come to a conclusion about the poles overlapping or not? When I draw a site line from the cab to pole "D" on your slide number 7 of 29, it shows the pole "C" is over the top of the site line and pole "B" is below.

They cannot overlap as they are not in line with each other.

Edit: The perpendicular distance from the site line to poles "B" and "C" is about 12'-13' for both. They would NOT overlap.

 

[Dog Town]

CIT interviewed all known the witnesses in the area...they didn't just pick and choose.

What a crock! You claim to be anti-Citizen Idiot Team. Yet you are making their argument. Even adding some layers, of teh stooopid.

I smell

Put this maroon on ignore folks. It ain't here to learn! Just spin wheels!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Exaclty Dave,
Which is why I was asking Gamolon why poles B, C, D should nearly overlap according to his line of sight drawing, but don't in the photo.

Grow up.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien was flying a Minnesota Air National Guard C-130H (Hercules) cargo airplane. He and his crew were on a return journey to Minnesota after having delivered supplies in the Caribbean. He took off from Andrews Air Force Base, just southeast of Washington DC, at about 9:30 am (EDT), and headed "north and west". "[We] had a beautiful view of the Mall", he remarked.

O'Brien

noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o'clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles or so away.

The plane came nearer until it

pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn, so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away.

Washington Reagan National Airport air traffic control asked O'Brien to identify the aircraft. He reported that the plane was either a 757 or 767 Boeing airliner, and that its silver fuselage meant it was probably an American Airlines jet. Controllers asked ("vectored") O'Brien to follow the plane (later identified as the errant AA Flight 77) as it approached Washington DC from the west. He attempted to, having difficulty picking it out in the East Coast haze. O'Brien saw a fireball, and initially believed the aircraft had hit the ground, but then saw the west side of the Pentagon. He reported to the control tower, "Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir".

 

[Dave Rogers]

It is trivially easy to draw the line of sight and I dont think the poles work in the line of sight you drew and claim is correct.

Isn't that rather an obvious lie, given that you're actually quoting a post in which I state it's off by a fraction?

Dave

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I haven't made any claims in regards to the C-130 other than that it was following the 757.

How closely? What was the time/distance gap? What height was it at. A C-130
is not anywhere near fast enough to follow a 757...the best it could do is follow the track of one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules#Specifications_.28C-130H.29

 

[sheeplesnshills]

All of the witnesses they interviewed were also interviewed by the military and Library of Congress...all interviewees essentially said same thing to CIT and mainstream gov't sources. So that would mean all these witnesses would have to be lying to put the plane somewhere other than the Official flightpath...what would the purpose of such a disinfo operation be?

No, they could also be mistaken or misrepresented.

Why a dis-info?.....why to make truthers look really really stupid so no one believes them even if they eventually stumble on the real "truth" ...cue X files music.....

This is standard Lizard Overlord stuff.

 

[Mobertermy]

So I was looking at the at the coppage pic:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_j1WCY4T_2...GXzFTiqGM6s/s1600-h/Coppage+Loyde+England.JPG

And I am wondering why poles C and D aren't around the turn off?

 

[Mobertermy]

Did you come to a conclusion about the poles overlapping or not? When I draw a site line from the cab to pole "D" on your slide number 7 of 29, it shows the pole "C" is over the top of the site line and pole "B" is below.

They cannot overlap as they are not in line with each other.
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/lightpole_streak1_hi.jpg[/qimg]

Edit: The perpendicular distance from the site line to poles "B" and "C" is about 12'-13' for both. They would NOT overlap.

Assuming you are right...that still doesn't explain why in the line of sight pole D and C are depicted as further apart than pole D and B yet in the photo the exact opposite is true.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Assuming you are right...that still doesn't explain why in the line of sight pole D and C are depicted as further apart than pole D and B yet in the photo the exact opposite is true.

Explained in post #1101.

Dave

 

[Mobertermy]

Explained in post #1101.

Dave

No it's not. Quit lying Dave.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So I was looking at the at the coppage pic:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_j1WCY4T_2...GXzFTiqGM6s/s1600-h/Coppage+Loyde+England.JPG

And I am wondering why poles C and D aren't around the turn off?

Draw the sight line.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

No it's not. Quit lying Dave.

Yes it is.

Which means that the line of sight I've drawn is off by a fraction, and if you rotate it very slightly clockwise then you'll reproduce the exact relative positions of the poles in photo #2.

That's the explanation. It's from post #1101. Stop making accusations that you can't back up.

Dave

 

[Gamolon]

Assuming you are right...that still doesn't explain why in the line of sight pole D and C are depicted as further apart than pole D and B

On the line of sight photo I just posted above?

yet in the photo the exact opposite is true.

Which photo are you referring to? Just want to be on the same page.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

"CIT interviewed all known the witnesses in the area...they didn't just pick and choose.

That is simply not true. They interviewed all THAT that wished to to interviewed. Of those mr Morin and Ms Zakhem are SoC, Paik is SoC at the one point he could see the plane, all the cemetery guys have no way of telling how far the plane was from them so are not witesses either way, Turcious is lying as he was not where he said he was and could have seen the plane do what he said it did even if he had been....
Lloyde England was lied to by CIT so got confused.
that leaves only the two cops........one was not at the Citgo (chad) but west and south of it and likely saw the shadow not the plane cross the citgo,
LaGasse story has changed over the years but its likely he simply forgot which way he was facing 7 years before when it happened.

There are lots of other known witnesses plus probably hundreds of others that have never given statements (the Interstate and other roads were packed that morning).
CIT cherry picked and misrepresented witnesses to fabricate a story so they could sell DVDs. More fool you for falling for it.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

If you want to talk about this could we move it to the other thread?

Why, its core to your whole theory! If the plane went SoC then why would anyone fake the pictures????